Judicial Power38 cards

Tagged as: government, finance, physics, accounting, nursing, criminal justic, law, medical, medicine, act, religion, geography, lsat, earth, history

 copy deck Copy deck



1. Advisory Opinions 2. Standing 3. Ripeness 4. Mootness 5. Political Question


Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms

SEC case was brought after time expired, but Congress cannot force the Court to hear a case it has already decided.


Nashville Chattanooga v. Wallace

case seeking declaratory judgment for a tax alleged to burden interstate commerce was justiciable bc it had adversary parties and a real controversy, not hypothetical.


Allen v. Wright

Parents of black students lack standing to challenge tax exemption given to private schools that discriminate on race



States wanted EPA to regulate emissions. MA had standing it proved 1.injury in fact 2. causation, and 3. redressibility.


Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Ladies who wanted to stop funding to foreign countries to save wildlife did not have standing because they lacked injury in fact and redressability


Lyons v. City of Los Angeles

Guy who was choked by police officer did not have standing because injury already happened - no redressibility because no imminent injury.


U.S. v. Hays

Louisiana Residents brought gerrymandering claims based on race, but they did not have standing because they did not live in the affected district


Federal Election Commission v. Akins

Congress can create a right to information and then the denial of that information can give standing.


Warth v. Seldin

Plaintiff has no standing when challenging to the city’s zoning law wouldn’t guarantee that Plaintiff could move to the city, no proper redress.


Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare

P's challenged IRS limit to the amount of free health care required by tax-exempt hospital because they were denied care, but there wasn't causation.


Duke Power v. Carolina Environmental

Price Anderson Act limlited claims for injuries from nuclear reactor. Causation and redressability met because but for the Act, the harms would not occur.


Barrows v. Jackson

White person who signed racially restrictive covenant could sue on behalf of blacks who were not party to the agreement


Singleton v. Wulff

Doctor could sue on behalf of women who wanted abortions because: (1) the relationship between the parties is such that the person may advocate effectively for the right (2) There is a genuine obstacle for the P to assert claim in court.


Craig v. Boren

bartender ok to sue on behalf of 18-21 year old men who couldn't drink because of bartenders economic loss.


Gilmore v. Utah

3rd party mom could not pursue habeas corpus on behalf of son who waived the right


Elk Grove School District v. Newdow

Dad didn't have standing to sue on behalf of his daughters because of custody dispute (and the Supreme Court didn't want to decide "under God" issue)


U.S. v. Richardson

General Taxpayer was not allowed to sue to find out how CIA was spending his tax dollars.


Flast v. Cohen

Taxpayer standing is appropriate when 1) the plaintiff challenges an enactment under the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution and 2) the enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations on taxing and spending.


Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State

taxpayer lacks standing to challenge property grant and only have standing to challenge expenditures.


Poe v. Ullman

Lawsuit by married woman seeking contraception despite state law prohibiting the use of contraception was dismissed on ripeness grounds as the state had not enforced the law for decades.


Hein v. Freedom From Religious Foundation

taxpayers challenged President's faith conference spending, but Flast was not extended to give them standing


Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner

label change requirement was ripe because the drug companies would have to implement the new regs immediately, even thought it hadn't passed. 1. immediately affected 2. face hardship if case wasn't heard


Regional RailRoad Reorganization Cases

RR's challenged giving their property to Conrail before reorganization plan was formed or ordered. It was ripe because it was inevitable and time delay was irrelevant


United Public Works v. Mitchell

federal employees challenged right to take active part in political stuff - but hypothetical was not enough for ripeness.


International Longshoremen v. Boyd

P's went to Alaska, sued to make sure they would be able to get back into US, but it was hypothetical and not ripe.


Lake Carriers Association v. MacMullan

suit challenging prohibition of discharge of sewage was ripe because it was inevitable that the law would be enforced when the facilities were ready.


Moore v. Ogilvie

Case about election nomination was not moot because elections happen repeatedly, even though the particular election was over


DeFunis v. Odegaard

law student filed claim, but not as class action, so it was moot because he would never be denied admission to law school again.


Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw

Laidlaw voluntarily closed its facility, but the case was not moot because they could reopen it/repeat at any time.


U.S. Parole Commission v. Geraghty

action brought on behalf of class of parolees not moot because named P's claim is moot, even though class certification was denied.


Baker v. Carr

six factors in determining a political question. (1) Constitutional assigned duties (2) Question without standard for measurement (3) an initial policy decision needed (4) Court would disrespect other branch (5) adherence to a prior political question is needed (6) potential for embarrassing differing decision from other branches (Alabama gerr


Davis v. Bandemer

Indiana gerrymandering presents justiciable issue


Veith v. Jubelirer

Pennsylvania gerrymandering questions, except on race, are not manageable standards and are not justiciable. opposite of Davis v. Bandemer?


Powell v. McCormack

Clayton Powell was voted into Congress, but Congress didn't want him. The court held it was justiciable, not political question, because he met the minimum requirements and House couldn't exclude him if he was voted in.


Goldwater v. Carter

Carter rescinded Taiwan treaty, Senate wanted to ratify it, but Court held it as political question because involves authority of President in conduct of foreign relations. Now, Presidents can rescind treaties.


Nixon v. U.S.

The SOLE power to impeach belongs to Congress, so it was a political question and court would not get involved. (Congressman Nixon)


Arizona Tuition v Winn

The effective demise of taxpayer standing. Distinguished between a tax credit for a donation to religious schools and direct spending, but says now there must be a personal injury other than just being a taxpayer.